David Crossley wrote:
Reinhard P?tz wrote:
Dear Cocoon PMC,
as I said in a separate thread recently, it's time for Corona to move
out of the whiteboard of Cocoon in order to increase its visibility and
to allow releases. Corona has reached a state where it is already useful
but there is a lot of room for others to enhance and improve it.
So far Corona has been developed by Steven and me (+ some additions by
Carsten recently) which doesn't qualify for being a diverse community.
By my standards, all the people who have helped to
discuss it are part of the community.
In order to change this I want to propose Corona to become a subproject
of Cocoon under the oversight of the Cocoon PMC.
For that purpose I think that it would be a good idea to follow the
procedure of the Incubator and nominate at least 2 additional PMC
members who help us to grow the community and do all the legal checks
when Corona is released (I'd love to see a alpha-1 release this summer.)
Therefore I kindly want to ask two other Cocoon PMC members to
become mentors for Corona and help to get it going.
I don't see the need. Cocoon PMC are the mentors
and have oversight. Anyone, including non-PMC,
can speak up at any time.
The two problems that my proposal tries to solve is that if nobody
speaks up and if nobody feels responsible.
I also propose that Corona is being moved to
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/corona. The initial set of
committers should consist of Carsten, Steven and me - every Cocoon
committer can get write access by simply asking for it on this list.
I would prefer that all Cocoon committers have
default commit ability.
When I look at an opensource project it's important for me to find out
the number of _active_ committers. By implication that means that I want
to be honest with all (potential) users and also be clear about the
number of people who have contributed code and about their affiliations.
This could be easily achieved by starting with a fresh list of
committers. And for all the existing Cocoon committers it shouldn't be
too hard to write an email to this list.
OTOH it would be good enough if the list of developers in the main
pom.xml of Corona only contains the names of committers that already
have contributed to Corona instead of listing all committers there that
have technical write access to the repository.
Additionally I'd also like to see a separate Jira project for Corona.
Are there any objections if ask infra in behalf of the Cocoon PMC to
create one for us?
That can happen independently, as soon as the name
is decided. Would it be COCOON-SOMETHING ?
This will depend whether we want to call it Apache Something or Apache
Cocoon Something. See below.
Finally this brings me to my last question: Do we want or do we have to
change the name "Corona"? For the legal part of this question, who can I
ask to get a final yes or no?
The Apache Incubator docs should have some guidelines
about this topic, since this issue often arises there.
The Incubator general mail list would have lots of
examples of people struggling with this issue, and hence
guidance from ASF members.
A quick search found these docs:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming
See any project's "Status report"
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/
The first item on their "Incubation work items"
is to be sure that the name is okay. e.g.
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/sanselan.html
The instruction says:
"Make sure that the requested project name does not
already exist and check www.nameprotect.com to be sure
that the name is not already trademarked for an
existing software product."
Does the ASF have an account?
A quick search for "corona software java" shows some
high profile software products.
Ok, this means that we have to find a better name.
First we should define the mission of this subproject.
Corona has two main goals:
1. Become the best platform for RESTful services and
RESTful web applications based on the concept
of pipelines.
2. Provide a generic pipeline Java API with SAX
and STaX based default implementations.
We will need a one-sentence description anyway.
Then the appropriate name should fall out.
I lean towards "Fibre" or "Silk". However because it
might not be the pipeline API that Cocoon uses, then
perhaps some other type of fibre. For example,
"Kapok" - "a fine fibrous cotton-like substance
found surrounding the seeds of a tropical tree".
(Australian Oxford English Dictionary). The term
"Java Kapok" is used, but from my quick search
not in the software industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiba_pentandra
So my proposals are:
Apache Cocoon Kapok
Apache Cocoon Fibre
I tend towards Apache (Cocoon) Silk because it is short and easily
pronounceable (in contrast to Fibre) and doesn't sound like Klingon
(Kapok).
I don't know if we should add "Cocoon" to the name and have no strong
opinion.
We should consider another possibility. If it
does not have any hope of being the/a pipeline
API for Cocoon, then perhaps it should go
completely to Apache Incubator to become its
own project. I would prefer that it stay here.
I don't see why it should have to go through the incubator. There is no
external project that wants to join Apache and all the work that has
gone into Corona so far was done under the eyes of the Cocoon PMC.
I prefer that Corona stays here.
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
